Jump to content

Recommended Posts

While the contributors have been worrying about $0.10, Shutterstock's chairman needed some pocket money ...

Date Director name Director's position Deal type Number of Price Value of trade Director's shares
shares dealt remaining
03-Jun-20 Oringer, Jonathan   Regular sell transaction (market) 13,356.00 $37.39 $499,380.84 16,209,754.00
02-Jun-20 Oringer, Jonathan   Regular sell transaction (market) 17,255.00 $37.13 $640,678.15 16,223,110.00
01-Jun-20 Silvio, Peter CTO Sell (tax related) 776 $37.13 $28,812.88 28,975.00
01-Jun-20 Oringer, Jonathan   Regular sell transaction (market) 15,962.00 $37.22 $594,105.64 16,240,365.00

 

(sorry about the formatting)

 

That totals $1,734,164.63 so far this June. That leaves him with just $599,760,898 worth of stock (at $37) left in hand.

 

That's a lot of $0.10 sales!

  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BobD said:

It may be that a few cents go further in poorer countries but as Olivier says if these contributors were so poor they would not have been able to afford the trappings needed to supply images in the first place. 

You would need a pretty large portfolio just to pay your monthly internet connection charge at 10c a sale.

 

List of USD incomes https://www.ceicdata.com/en/indicator/ukraine/annual-household-income-per-capita

 

Plenty of countries on that list in Europe and supplying large numbers of images to microstock including/especially, lifestyle.  You don't have to be a 'poor' country in order to produce vast numbers of quality images.

 

Once you can produce them cheaply, you can 'afford' to sell at rates/returns which UK/USA/Western European countries would find impossible to justify as a business. 

 

Personally I took great pleasure in deleting my small SS account, one image at a time - they lost their gloss a few years ago. Like normal stock channels, the good days are now history for most.

Edited by GeoffK
typo
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

That's odd, what on earth is the logic behind giving a red arrow for publishing some publicly available information on share (stock) sales. 😲

Edited by Russell
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Russell said:

That's odd, what on earth is the logic behind giving a red arrow for publishing some publically available information on share (stock) sales. 😲

Perhaps Jonathan Oringer is a member of the forum.😀

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Russell said:

That's odd, what on earth is the logic behind giving a red arrow for publishing some publicly available information on share (stock) sales. 😲

 

There are still a few microstock cultists fighting for the cause through anonymous red arrows for any hint of negative thinking. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Russell said:

That's odd, what on earth is the logic behind giving a red arrow for publishing some publicly available information on share (stock) sales. 😲

 

maybe because it's skewing away the conversion away from the leeway Alamy kindly allowed in discussion general industry discussion. this seems personal (though not as bad as what i saw on their own Forum).  just speculating. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

 

maybe because it's skewing away the conversion away from the leeway Alamy kindly allowed in discussion general industry discussion. this seems personal (though not as bad as what i saw on their own Forum).  just speculating. 

Simply illustrating the gulf between the mindset of the senior executives and that of their contributors.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Russell said:

Simply illustrating the gulf between the mindset of the senior executives and that of their contributors.

 

but it's more the distance between the rate of return requirements of the shareholders for a publicly traded company.  In the end they are the one demanding these.  I use to be in pricing in insurance, and i didn't set price and have "negative" clauses because of the president's salary, i did because the market would beat us if we didn't provide their 12% Return in investment capital.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, BobD said:

John my understanding is they will pay you out if you cancel your account but not if you just suspend it.

I really don't think they are that bad a company that they would try to hang on to your money.

 

Thanks for the information, I read a bit more at the site. I have just requested a deletion of my (old) account (from before I entered Alamy) to be able to get the last $8-9 transferred. It seems that it should be done in steps - to be able to get the remaining amount - not very clear - perhaps on purpose.

I have deleted most when I went exclusive with both media types - and deleted the last  remaining couple of images some days ago. 

 

Edited by Niels Quist
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

it's more the distance between the rate of return requirements of the shareholders for a publicly traded company

Absolutely correct, and in this case it's interesting to note that since the Chairman hold 45.5% of the issued stock they could be considered one and the same thing.

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Brian Yarvin said:

 

Wouldn't it be absolutely hilarious if Shutterstock was going to be merged with Alamy? (Only a joke! Only a joke!! I have no information inside or otherwise!!!)

NOT FUNNY Brian....

 

Chuck

  • Haha 2
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

8 hours ago, BobD said:

John my understanding is they will pay you out if you cancel your account but not if you just suspend it.

I really don't think they are that bad a company that they would try to hang on to your money.

 

It looks as if you don't have to cancel. Here's what they say in the "Deactivating your account" section:

 

"We will pay any outstanding earnings above $1, but you will need to contact us in advance to process this payment."

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I deactivated my account as soon as this mess started, but won't delete in case things change, although I don't hold out much hope. It's too bad as I was making a reasonable amount with a small portfolio there and had intended to add to it as I was adding images here and at Adobe. May was the first month I didn't make payout there, so I guess I'll have to ask for my earnings. I assumed they would just be a loss. This really seems like a minor issue in light of what is happening in my country, a distraction, but one that has threatened the livelihood of people who have large portfolios there and were making a living at ss. All part of the same greed and income inequality that is bringing our way of life down. 

 

In stark contrast to shutterstock's underhanded move and refusal to respond to contributors, Alamy and Adobe's willingness to engage with their contributors gives me hope that stock photography will still be viable as an adjunct to photographer's income, but I worry that pricing in the stock photo industry has passed a tipping point so that it will no longer be viable as a full time profession, even for those with tens of thousands of images. 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Brian Yarvin said:

 

Chuck, it's the best I can do given the circumstances.

 

You mean that you haven't seen the "Meanwhile, over at Alamy..." thread on the SS forum? 😁

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Olivier Parent said:

 

I tend to think that people that live in poor countries and have problems making ends meet probably have other concerns than buying computers/photography gear in order to submit photos of apples to Shutterstock. Just my opinion.

Not necessarily true. Cell phones with cameras are everywhere, and today everyone has one.  I've seen firsthand channels they use to get them into Nepal and what they cost. Ditto for Indonesia, and I won't even start about India etc.

 

Quality is naturally not good for Alamy, but is for micros. Some even have 'upload straight from mobile' and automatic keyword interface. Further Internet is everywhere and widely available.  So your cost is not more than cost of cheap cell phone.  People that live in the West in their bubbles don't generally understand what is the reality of life on this planet.   And this is why 10 cent a pop compensation works.

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Brian Yarvin said:

 

Chuck, it's the best I can do given the circumstances.

It was VERY funny... Chuck has poor sense of humour :)

  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

In response to the above but one post from Autumn Sky.

 

I think that it would be a great idea to leave microstock contributions to people in poorer countries who need the money - Eastern Europe, Asia, Africa, central and South America. Perhaps broaden the campaign to include all low income people everywhere in the world and provide them with cell phones and cameras to help improve their incomes?

 

Of course, part of this campaign would involve putting pressure on those who don't need the money to give way for others more in need. 

 

If I'm following the argument correctly not only is microstock destroying the stock photography industry it is not doing enough to focus on economic development of the needy.

 

Shame.

Edited by geogphotos
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, geogphotos said:

<SNIP>

Of course, part of this campaign would involve putting pressure on those who don't need the money to give way for others more in need. 

<SNIP>

 

Well, that's proved a clear winner during the past few hundred thousand years! 😂 ☹️

Edited by losdemas
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, losdemas said:

 

Well, that's proved a clear winner during the past few hundred thousand years! 😂 ☹️

 

I concede that there may be a few holes in my theory 😊

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there are a few completely missing what's been happening in micro by assuming that people with cell phones are snapping images for 10 cents.  There are masses of images being produced very month by stock production concerns that are based in countries where the average income and general costs are a fraction of what we deal with in USA/Western Europe.

 

For example, I've just checked a few Ukraine based producers who are shooting high-end business/lifestyle for micro (ports in the 10s of thousands) with multiple models and good locations. Fifteen or so years ago this would have been stock for Blend/Cultura/Image Source etc but now it's micro fodder (post Yuri).  They are not alone and are the new face of a lot of micro production.  They will suffer to some extent with the new royalty structure but are in a much better position to climb back to higher levels. If their port size can overcome the temporary blips, they will be doing business as usual.

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, GeoffK said:

I think there are a few completely missing what's been happening in micro by assuming that people with cell phones are snapping images for 10 cents.  There are masses of images being produced very month by stock production concerns that are based in countries where the average income and general costs are a fraction of what we deal with in USA/Western Europe.

 

For example, I've just checked a few Ukraine based producers who are shooting high-end business/lifestyle for micro (ports in the 10s of thousands) with multiple models and good locations. Fifteen or so years ago this would have been stock for Blend/Cultura/Image Source etc but now it's micro fodder (post Yuri).  They are not alone and are the new face of a lot of micro production.  They will suffer to some extent with the new royalty structure but are in a much better position to climb back to higher levels. If their port size can overcome the temporary blips, they will be doing business as usual.

 

 

 

 

 

 

You can't blame them if the average income in Ukraine is only $1000 or so. Though what stops them contributing to non-micros?

 

And how does this relate to contributors in UK, USA, Canada, European Union etc who do not have low costs of living and low costs of production?

 

I don't see the linkage or why the justification of one relates to the other. Okay a lot of micro contributors live in poor countries and the  10 cent sales make a real difference, but not ALL micro contributors live, or even the majority, in these countries.

 

I don't see the Ukrainian based producers sending in pictures of their skiing holiday in Lake Louise or safari holiday in Kenya?

 

Surely this thread is all about  how many Shutterstock contributors are finally saying 'enough is enough' and that they are not prepared to be treated as slave labour.

Edited by geogphotos
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GeoffK said:

I think there are a few completely missing what's been happening in micro by assuming that people with cell phones are snapping images for 10 cents.  There are masses of images being produced very month by stock production concerns that are based in countries where the average income and general costs are a fraction of what we deal with in USA/Western Europe.

 

For example, I've just checked a few Ukraine based producers who are shooting high-end business/lifestyle for micro (ports in the 10s of thousands) with multiple models and good locations. Fifteen or so years ago this would have been stock for Blend/Cultura/Image Source etc but now it's micro fodder (post Yuri).  They are not alone and are the new face of a lot of micro production.  They will suffer to some extent with the new royalty structure but are in a much better position to climb back to higher levels. If their port size can overcome the temporary blips, they will be doing business as usual.

 

 

 

 

 

This is true they will climb very quickly to the top level, however the vast majority of their sales will drop from 38c to 10c, so unless they have a separate deal with higher commission you have to wonder if paying models and travel to those good locations will be a viable proposition. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

You can't blame them if the average income in Ukraine is only $1000 or so. Though what stops them contributing to non-micros?

 

And how does this relate to contributors in UK, USA, Canada, European Union etc who do not have low costs of living and low costs of production?

 

I don't see the linkage or why the justification of one relates to the other. Okay a lot of micro contributors live in poor countries and the  10 cent sales make a real difference, but not ALL micro contributors live, or even the majority, in these countries.

 

I don't see the Ukrainian based producers sending in pictures of their skiing holiday in Lake Louise or safari holiday in Kenya?

 

Surely this thread is all about  how many Shutterstock contributors are finally saying 'enough is enough' and that they are not prepared to be treated as slave labour.

 

Ian, I'll take a stab at your questions. They are important and almost never discussed.

 

What stops many of the production groups from contributing to old-school agencies are language and exclusivity. Shutterstock doesn't require you to keyword or even read a contract in English. Getty requires a heavily enforced exclusivity. A photographer in the Ukraine or Vietnam can join, upload, and keyword in their own language, and then upload to as many agencies as they can find. If one fails, they can just move to another. 

 

Your next point addresses a different question - where the majority of contributors live vs where the majority of payouts go. Photographers in certainly low-cost countries dominate earnings because they're shooting images that are used in much higher volumes. It's very true that holiday snapshots make up the majority of stock submissions, but they don't account for the majority of sales - lifestyle does that. And lifestyle shooting has moved from major markets like New York and London to low-cost centers like the Ukraine and Vietnam.

 

If I'm understanding the new Shutterstock rates correctly, these big producers will get an increase, not a cut. It's holiday snapshots crowd that takes the hit. 

 

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.